isoul

I own both, bought DCS:BS before FC2.0. I found FC2.0 aircraft easier to handle and learn while the Black Shark, with its extra fidelity flight model and controls, is quite a time consuming process to master. Even the Su-25T with its advanced flight model is easier to handle that Ka-50. Even in real life jets are more straight forward to operate than helicopters! Apart from this, its up to you if you like attack helicopters or fixed wing aircraft better. I find fixed wing aircraft lot easier and straightforward to fly than rotary wing (helis). Even if you are addicted to strike role, the Su-25T gives different capabilities than Ka-50 and vice versa. If lower difficulty is what you want get FC2.0... then move to BS to experience the ultra realistic flight model and procedures.

Indeed! I have the same feeling overall.

200m RDR Altitude! This is the real distance your bird has from the floor... Nice suggestion regarding the rearm menu. Thought of it before and it would be a nice mod. Btw I find it stupid to have S-8KOM rocket under CAS menu! I doubt that a heli is the best solution to deliver a bomb... probably Kamov and the various Army Aviations doubt that too cause ... too few tried that in combat. The CCRP would be best fitting a helicopter but still the helicopters main weapons are guided missiles and rockets. This is not only because you can aim better with them but because you can deliver them from a safe distance. Just a question... are you efficient dropping bombs on the target?

Personally I don't think that targets are easily distinguishable from the sky. Don't think of clear days in Iraq and Afghanistan... Think of normal days in Bosnia! Climate and weather in Georgia is more alike Bosnia or Yugoslavia. Then consider the successes in Iraq aerial-campaign and the ones in Bosnia and Yugoslavia aerial-campaigns. The weather, ground morphology and plantation has a huge impact when strike aircraft had to deal with smaller, non-stationary targets. Apart from this, there are many cases that a helicopter can spot and engage targets more efficiently than strike aircraft.

1) Do you mean in RL or in-game? In real life, as people said above, the rotor blade's turning speed is enough to distinguish a ground vehicle from a rotor-craft even if the last is hovering (remember that rotor blades are still moving at high speed). 2) AFAIK in RL the key to remain undetected is to use terrain cover as best as you can. In Bosnia the ground morphology is such that helicopters can fly low AND UNDETECTED MOST OF THE TIME! 3) Would it?

The main rules are : 1) Try to take a good time scouting the area ahead of you and the target area. Prioritize the threats. 2) Use your stand off weapons at the highest threats. Pop-up attacks (utilizing hover & hills for cover) is your best choice. 3)Once enemies that can one-shot you are taken out, you can proceed with finishing off the rest using cannon and rockets. Break before you overfly the target area.

I don't want to be irritating but are there any actual additions and bug fixes for the simulation itself? Apart from the Missile error probability I 've seen nothing else being changed regarding the simulation itself.

Actually hover in real life would take just a few minutes. A Shark can deliver all their 12 ATGM in a few minutes and an Longbow Apache can deliver all Hellfires in even less time using its radar... In so little time a tank won't even come close to its attacker! Now the fact that stationary targets won't pursuit you even if you hover for half an hour is not annoying to me. I strongly doubt that tanks will think to pursuit a helo in RL! The best think they can do is to get in cover and call in the fighters. If you want to exploit AI behavior you can do so much that probably none can prevent you unless he manages to recreate real word at every detail.

I don't think that Russians discourage hovering! I remember reading that there was a debate about the Vikhr missile and its efficiency with the Su-25T saying that Vikhrs, by not being a fire&forget missile, are much more effective when used by attack helicopters cause it can be launched at hover so it can engage multiple targets while staying at maximum range while the Su-25T, with its speed, by the time of impact it may enter the range of short range anti-air defenses. Still IRL, as EvilBivol said earlier, hover is dangerous cause you are a "floating" duck in the open so it won't be used so often... especially while in enemy territory.

The FPS issue is solved with the 1.2.1 patch! A drop of 10 fps in worst case over a city. The only thing that people must get used to is to acquire targets from longer range, once you get close its quite harder to point the seeker on the target and engage it in time. Btw the 8x and 23x zoom is the real zoom of the Su-25T's Shkval so the game is more realistic.

I think that the K is dependent on target size, since its electro-optical, but the D is depending on how strong the infrared signature is. Judging with simple reason, if a flare counter measure, which is quite small, is enough to "fool" an infrared seeker then the signature's power is more important than the size.

Thx ED!

Agreed! While actual data about the Shark are quite rare in order to compare the two helicopters, the coaxial rotor is said to give better maneuverability. Still I may be wrong since there is not enough data to compare those too. The point back there was not to say that Apache is worse that the Shark or the opposite. The point was to mention that every helo has a better one to threat it and all are inferior even to strike aircraft when it comes to air-combat. To stay on six of an enemy helo means you have to get into position undetected(probably by setting up an ambush) at the first place and keep a distance behind it since its easy to overshoot an enemy helo when you are quite close. All these are somewhat theoritical since I don't know any actual air-combat between helos taking place and I don't know if helo pilots are extensively trained how to deal with other helos rather than taking evasive action and flying away. In game trying to stay in position where your enemy can't shoot you is the best tactic I 've found.

Thats why damage can't be modeled accurately. There are hundreds of aspects that the game can't take into consideration. But what seems more odd? A rocket that kills every soldier close to the its impact point or a rocket that won't harm him? Then another question arise : What's more important to us? Modeling the rocket's destructive capabilities or the soldier's defensive capabilities?

Ethereal, I am not so sure about my argument either! Thats why I said that Apache "should possibly avoid the Shark"... I am aware that the Apache's 20mm cannon can rotate and this is a big advantage over the fixed cannon of the Shark. Thats also why I suggested that in an unfortunate dogfight the Shark should use its manueverability and speed to stay at enemy's six. I would certainly say the opposite if Apache was faster and more agile but since it isn't I left the Shark a few chances more to win and of course I may be wrong! One thing is for sure and I believe we both agree on that... "Leave the air-combat to fighter pilots". Helos aren't meant to engage other helos or aircaft... your No1 choice is to avoid air-combat at all times, all other options are in the misfortune category.

Damage mechanisms are extremely complex to simulate accurately. You can't simulate shrapnel or the blast force when explosives detonate on different surfaces. On the other hand some explosives, like S-8KOM rockets, seem to be somewhat ineffective against even unarmored targets such as trucks or even personnel. Given that a MKII or M26 hand grenade will inflict 100% casualties at a 10m radious the S-8KOM blast and fragments should kill pesonnel at even larger radious. Still, in many cases, it seems you need a near hit to kill a soldier and almost a direct hit to destroy a truck. Maybe a more throughout investigation and some screenshots would prove me right or wrong. I dunno how S-8KOM damage is modeled but a simple "splash damage" at an X meter radious should be good enough for the game.

Works perfectly with Win7... no errors/crashes so far! Core2Quad/nVidia GFX card

Whats wrong with SU-25? OK its not as modern as SU-25T, it doesn't have a TV display to search for targets but ... as a CAS of the 70s-80s its quite interesting. Personally I would find a Mig-21 sim more interesting than a F-22 one, so my opinion may not count.

In general helos just avoid other helos and most important enemy aircrafts. A Huey should avoid everything, Apache should possibly avoid the Shark and the Shark should avoid even the slowest mud-movers such as the A-10, not to mention actual fighter planes. In the case of facing another helo, the Ka-50 has the advantage of moving faster and being more maneuverable. If you spot the enemy first at a distance you can engage him with Vikhrs but once you come at close range you should stay at enemy six and do the typical WWII dogfight with your cannon(which actually can tear apart the heaviest helos like Mi-24). Keep in mind that helos have a very different flying behavior( that warplanes so the typical air combat maneuvers can't be performed or doesn't have the same application as in fighters. In general... consider the helicopter as a fast moving ground asset rather than an air asset.

Of course its a cheat since one can spot targets from way longer than others. Still there should be the ability to spot targets beyond maximum range of weapons. As it is now the transparency is there even at 10km... when you have 8x Zoom its odd and at 23x zoom (where you can actually see the ground behind the transparent building) the effect is unrealistic.

A warplane flies too high and fast to easily spot a target, a heli flies lower but slower meaning once it spots a target(in urban area)... the heli is a target too, the tank can see better but it can be seen even better... only the foot soldier can see even better and can hide very efficiently... he is the king of urban warfare. Fragile but still a king! Respect the king... he can't be easily harmed when he sits on his "throne"(aka urban area). OK, lets stop being melodramatic here! This is how things are in RL and I think it should be that way in the game too... Riding a warplane in the sky doesn't mean that you are invulnerable, even if fighters aren't present, and it doesn't mean that everyone else is srewed cause you fly above their heads. It has its shortcomings too... Infantry has its means to be "invulnerable" too. Thats why in RL mission objectives aren't like "kill vehicles inside a city", you can kill what you see and in a city or a forest you rarely can see everything. Don't expect a flyier to spot a target behind/inside buildings, in narrow allays, with debris around. As mentioned earlier, a FAC (be it a heli, other aircraft or at best a soldier with the proper eqipment) is the best solution!

For me setting [FogParam1=7 and FogParam2=0.6] works good. I can easily spot targets more than 30km away. The only thing thats odd is that you can see trees at (maybe) 50km away but buildings are still transparent at 30km. The opposite would be desired I think! Ofcourse setting FogParam2=0 will remove transparency completely but then the impact on FPS while the (8x zoomed) Shkval is pointed towards the horizon will be there, though it won't be so frequent. Still, being able to spot a target at 30km away is enough I think since Kh-25ML and Kh-29L maximum range is 12km, so you can spot it early enough. Aren't these the missiles with the longest range for a Su-25T? I think that transparency serves its role good but it should be restrained to long distances only.

As GG already mentioned the real life Shkval has no 0x Zoom. I haven't found any source claiming the opposite! I just found that 8x is used as the "target search mode" and 23x is used as the "target lock mode". The only things I would like to point out is : 1) ED please think to make Shkval slew at 8x Zoom a bit faster... as it is now its a bit time consuming to traverse the camera. I doubt this happens in real life cause war is no slow motion! 2) ED please re-evaluate the transparency of building in Shkval! At 8x it is somewhat odd to be able to zoom in but see nothing but "shadowy buildings" at a distance of only 10-12km. Keep in mind that if 8x would be the default zoom level, lots of people will try to seek out targets from twice the max range of their weapons.

No, I can't say I am disappointed by FC2.0!!! The lack of scalability options is a "matter" and the lack of weapons load-out is a disadvantage to me BUT these aren't game characteristics... Two examples : 1) Who criticized CoD4 for its limited options in graphics menu? I find it "poor" but its not bad since the game runs smooth on medium systems. 2) Did you ever thought Janes USNF or ATF as superior sims cause you could change loadouts? I think no. As a sim FC2.0 is very good... it could be better but its not disappointing.

Just keep in mind that setting that work in DCS:BS won't be the best for FC2.0. Keep in mind that Ka-50 flies slower and lower than even Su-25/A-10 so the visual preferences should be different. For example, using the same fogparameter1 and fogparameter2 values in FC2.0 will make the visuals in FC2.0 odd/ugly... still in FCS looks wonderful.